I am completely unschooled in your subject matter of philosophy, so saying your EE premise seems clear to me and very simple to understand doesn't mean much. However if you want a simple and clear idea to be accepted ( why??) don't expect trained philosophers to be your audience. they have spent years training to make the obvious into a complicated industry. Your EE philosophy will not sustain journals, tomes and university professors, Going to shrinks must be your own private joke on yourself! Experience is the purpose of our existence. Getting a prize for saying simple things is unlikely. Go get yourself more experience and even have an adventure or two, and some fun !! Joy in existence is better than a dreary life. Novelty is brilliant!
You are especially appreciated as always. And on top of that I appreciate your time spent here reading and commenting! :)
Let me answer in chunks:
Me too. I didn’t consider myself a philosopher until some months ago. I backed into EE. My original search was on the assumption that my philosophy had a formal name and school somewhere. Basically this all started when I asked the AI “So here’s how I parse things, what am I philosophically?” And it was like “not found.”
That also answers your why question, because I was on a mission at the time: AI alignment. Most pressing problem of our era imo. I backed into EE via solving AI alignment. But I was only able to solve AI alignment because I already informally was operating under EE.
You’re almost certainly right about formally educated philosophers. But two sub points there, firstly philpapers/philpeople is full of informally educated people (and some outright loonies) and secondly it’s still useful for error checking and research. Like if anyone can spot where I’m wrong it should be someone from that segment of the net. But yeah, over all you’re right, they especially can’t be reached because it costs them to allow it.
My going to the shrink is ultimately about dental repair. This side use-case is just a fun side mission. It’s funny you should use the word joke, I have some persona history to share: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3ZtHWWEP-g
I'm not stupid, but I don't really understand the proposition...
You're saying that if you are told there is a special chair in Mongolia, it doesn't exist (for you) unless you can at least SEE it, and then verify by sitting on it?
If that's not it, then perhaps you could re-phrase the premise?
I'm not saying anyone who fails to get EE is stupid. That issue is 100% not about intelligence.
It's more like experience as a whole concept. Someone in Mongolia is experiencing the chair.
Like I may not experience the chair but I experience you telling me about the chair and I experience the memories that help me conclude I can trust you about your claim.
Thank you as always for the support and kind words. I agree with you of course, but I want to say that I don’t feel like you get ee either. You get a huge part of it, the deeply practical part, but not what I would think of as the whole thing. I don’t mean elaborate fallout, or agreement either since I already have that in your case.
I mean something else. This is hard to explain because even in writing this and posts like it, I of course asked myself what would understanding look like apart from some trivial and unfair test where agreement is required.
Like when I say no one agrees with ee, and no one understands ee, those should be different things, but I think I might be approaching a point where I conclude ee is an exception in that sense in the same way it’s an exception in some others.
Like when one asks “why” like a toddler over and over, you get an answer every time except the last time. The outsides/whys/answers eventually bottom out to “just because” at least one time. (Agrippa’s trilemma.) EE ends in self proving axiom: experience occurs/is.
So it’s like “Why>reason>Why>reason>…” until eventually “Why>Just because (axiom).” But ee is an exception because that’s not dogmatic foundationalism, it literally IS the foundation because the “just is” at that point genuinely authentically is self proving. Like you don’t experience stuff because I say so. You experience stuff first. My saying so is just more experience.
Also, you openly validate me for your own reasons. Which are basically not the reasons I argue for when I speak formally of ee. So it’s not a questions of agreement, it’s something else that I can’t quite nail down, and can only speculate about.
When/if I ever see a group of people overtly argue and claim they understand ee, maybe I can have a debate about whether they do or not regardless of my personal impression, but for the moment there’s no such argument to audit, apart from the people who vehemently disagree, but who’s arguments, I know for a fact are specious. Which to me indicates strong misunderstanding.
So agreement is not understanding, but strong misunderstanding leads to disagreement, but maybe not always? But strong misunderstanding is easy to spot. Like if someone said “I fully understand ee, it’s just fascism, and I hate fascism.” I would be like “Uhhh, no?” And that’s not me rejecting them because disagree with me you know?
Anyway, I’m trying my best to be zero assumption, super clear, and super fair. But I’m fully willing to grant that maybe you DO get ee in every authentic sense, and that my impression of no one getting it is thus authentically mistaken. Time will tell I guess.
Sorry for the wall of text rambles and thanks again XD
Did someone really equate EE with fascism? Jfc🤦♀️ I totally get where you're coming from. Lol. I'm the same way, which is probably why I get what your saying better than most. No worries😊 You're welcome🙂
No thankfully, they did not, but in checking my records for the closest actual insanity I did fish out this one time where a guy accused me of making a word of god type argument, that he then parsed are maximally religiously oppressive. Which I guess, would be extremely close to fascism XD
When I made that video EE did not have a name, and EE wasn’t even the main point, it’s just an example of how I always reasoned. I think you’re basically doing the same thing.
I am completely unschooled in your subject matter of philosophy, so saying your EE premise seems clear to me and very simple to understand doesn't mean much. However if you want a simple and clear idea to be accepted ( why??) don't expect trained philosophers to be your audience. they have spent years training to make the obvious into a complicated industry. Your EE philosophy will not sustain journals, tomes and university professors, Going to shrinks must be your own private joke on yourself! Experience is the purpose of our existence. Getting a prize for saying simple things is unlikely. Go get yourself more experience and even have an adventure or two, and some fun !! Joy in existence is better than a dreary life. Novelty is brilliant!
You are especially appreciated as always. And on top of that I appreciate your time spent here reading and commenting! :)
Let me answer in chunks:
Me too. I didn’t consider myself a philosopher until some months ago. I backed into EE. My original search was on the assumption that my philosophy had a formal name and school somewhere. Basically this all started when I asked the AI “So here’s how I parse things, what am I philosophically?” And it was like “not found.”
That also answers your why question, because I was on a mission at the time: AI alignment. Most pressing problem of our era imo. I backed into EE via solving AI alignment. But I was only able to solve AI alignment because I already informally was operating under EE.
You’re almost certainly right about formally educated philosophers. But two sub points there, firstly philpapers/philpeople is full of informally educated people (and some outright loonies) and secondly it’s still useful for error checking and research. Like if anyone can spot where I’m wrong it should be someone from that segment of the net. But yeah, over all you’re right, they especially can’t be reached because it costs them to allow it.
My going to the shrink is ultimately about dental repair. This side use-case is just a fun side mission. It’s funny you should use the word joke, I have some persona history to share: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3ZtHWWEP-g
Thanks again and again, you are appreciated :)
Interesting. I'm always up for hearing something truly novel; such opportuinities are exceedingly rare.
Thank you for the kind words. I have tried making a dozen starting points. Here’s two:
https://philpapers.org/rec/SERTTA-2
https://innomen.substack.com/p/spacetime-is-religion
I'm not stupid, but I don't really understand the proposition...
You're saying that if you are told there is a special chair in Mongolia, it doesn't exist (for you) unless you can at least SEE it, and then verify by sitting on it?
If that's not it, then perhaps you could re-phrase the premise?
I'm not saying anyone who fails to get EE is stupid. That issue is 100% not about intelligence.
It's more like experience as a whole concept. Someone in Mongolia is experiencing the chair.
Like I may not experience the chair but I experience you telling me about the chair and I experience the memories that help me conclude I can trust you about your claim.
Got ya, and I concur. Yeah, I have a very analytical brain. I love logic problems and mysteries. Lol. The down side is that my brain never shuts up😕🤣
Right? The unsee button is greyed out. I made a meme for this but subfail won’t allow me to leave an attachment directly. https://substack.com/@innomen/note/c-306592834
Yea and verily. I like it! 😃
I completely agree with you 🤷♀️ I think those other people are nuttier than a fruitcake. There's nothing outside of experience 🤦♀️
Thank you as always for the support and kind words. I agree with you of course, but I want to say that I don’t feel like you get ee either. You get a huge part of it, the deeply practical part, but not what I would think of as the whole thing. I don’t mean elaborate fallout, or agreement either since I already have that in your case.
I mean something else. This is hard to explain because even in writing this and posts like it, I of course asked myself what would understanding look like apart from some trivial and unfair test where agreement is required.
Like when I say no one agrees with ee, and no one understands ee, those should be different things, but I think I might be approaching a point where I conclude ee is an exception in that sense in the same way it’s an exception in some others.
Like when one asks “why” like a toddler over and over, you get an answer every time except the last time. The outsides/whys/answers eventually bottom out to “just because” at least one time. (Agrippa’s trilemma.) EE ends in self proving axiom: experience occurs/is.
So it’s like “Why>reason>Why>reason>…” until eventually “Why>Just because (axiom).” But ee is an exception because that’s not dogmatic foundationalism, it literally IS the foundation because the “just is” at that point genuinely authentically is self proving. Like you don’t experience stuff because I say so. You experience stuff first. My saying so is just more experience.
Also, you openly validate me for your own reasons. Which are basically not the reasons I argue for when I speak formally of ee. So it’s not a questions of agreement, it’s something else that I can’t quite nail down, and can only speculate about.
When/if I ever see a group of people overtly argue and claim they understand ee, maybe I can have a debate about whether they do or not regardless of my personal impression, but for the moment there’s no such argument to audit, apart from the people who vehemently disagree, but who’s arguments, I know for a fact are specious. Which to me indicates strong misunderstanding.
So agreement is not understanding, but strong misunderstanding leads to disagreement, but maybe not always? But strong misunderstanding is easy to spot. Like if someone said “I fully understand ee, it’s just fascism, and I hate fascism.” I would be like “Uhhh, no?” And that’s not me rejecting them because disagree with me you know?
Anyway, I’m trying my best to be zero assumption, super clear, and super fair. But I’m fully willing to grant that maybe you DO get ee in every authentic sense, and that my impression of no one getting it is thus authentically mistaken. Time will tell I guess.
Sorry for the wall of text rambles and thanks again XD
Did someone really equate EE with fascism? Jfc🤦♀️ I totally get where you're coming from. Lol. I'm the same way, which is probably why I get what your saying better than most. No worries😊 You're welcome🙂
No thankfully, they did not, but in checking my records for the closest actual insanity I did fish out this one time where a guy accused me of making a word of god type argument, that he then parsed are maximally religiously oppressive. Which I guess, would be extremely close to fascism XD
And yeah, I think you do seem to broadly parse things the same way I do: https://innomen.substack.com/p/my-ground-floor
When I made that video EE did not have a name, and EE wasn’t even the main point, it’s just an example of how I always reasoned. I think you’re basically doing the same thing.